I don't see these as duplicates. This is a question about the history of this symbol, while the other (apparently in addition to that) is (or at least could be taken to be) asking for a source for its religious significance. It's probably worth clarifying and sharpening the other question.
–
Isaac MosesDec 5 '11 at 19:27

3 Answers
3

My understanding of the Star of David is that it became iconic around the same time that Kabbalah and the Zohar began to gain acceptance as a input into Halacha. It is in the Merkavah literature and the Zohar that the 6 pointed star is given significance. The Star of David is seen as the star that connects the sephirah of Malchut to the 6 sefirot above it. Malchut is a sefira that is associated with King David.

An interesting note regarding the Star of David is that in Lurianic Kabbalah the seder plate is placed in such a way as to create two overlapping triangles. As per Gershom article where he tries to claim that it does not say such a thing. It seems that this practice, and the subsequent creation of Seder plates with this symbol is what spearheaded the Star of David into it's Iconic status.

It would make sense that a symbol used on Pesach would be able to overcome the traditional Jewish Symbol of the 7 branched Menorah.

There are many other numerlogical and structural signifcances of the symbol which give it a meaning of protection and a uniqueness to the Jewish people. (even though it's used by other cultures as well.)

The "shield of David" then grew to be understood as a literal symbol which King David bore upon his Shield (and the Maccabees) and became iconic as we know of it today.

The hexagram has been in use as a symbol of Judaism since the 17th
century, with precedents in the 14th to 16th centuries in Central
Europe, where the Shield of David was partly used in conjunction with
the Seal of Solomon (the hexagram) on Jewish flags. Its use probably
derives from medieval (11th to 13th century) Jewish protective amulets
(segulot).

Gershom Scholem wrote a good article about this, available here. The origin of the star is as a magical symbol, and it can be seen in amulets such as those written by R. Yonatan Eybeschuetz, for example, but long before as well, and not specifically in Jewish sources. According to Scholem, "The prime motive behind the wide diffusion of the sign in the 19th century was the desire to imitate Christianity. The Jews looked for a striking and simple sign which would 'symbolize' Judaism in the same way as the cross symbolizes Christianity" (Scholem, Kabbalah, 367-68).

Rav Moshe Feinstein, in a teshuva about a whether there is a problem in having a parochet with a Magen David, says that there is no problem, even though the Magen David has no source, because it has been used by Jews for hundreds of years (before its adoption by the Zionist movement):

While an interesting article, it makes some statements that sound very false to me. (For example in his repetition of the Seder plate description, it sure sounds like a Magen David to me, even if it's exact name is not used...) However the main point of my comment is that you should give a brief summary of the article and it's main points and not just provide a link.
–
aviDec 7 '11 at 10:13

@Avi I wouldn't dismiss any Scholem article out of hand without an alternative (strong) source.
–
Seth JDec 8 '11 at 1:01

@SethJ The source is his own quote. He quotes the Luranic text, (which describes creating two triangles overlapping eachother on the seder plate without using those words) and then says that this clearly has no connection to the Star of David. The biggest problem with Scholem is that he projects what other people were thinking, and he clearly has no clue what the Religious Jew does when encountering texts. (I.e. believes them, and believes they have more to say than what is written) It's a known problem with his writings.
–
aviDec 8 '11 at 7:10

3

He might very well be wrong. And pompous. And disrespctful to the religious source. But if you're going to reject a renowned expert in the study of Jewish history and Kabbalah for his conjecture, you should demonstrate your own expertise in the subject, or at the very least bolster your point with at least one source, rather than your own conjecture about how he came up with his conjecture. Saying his statements "sound very false to [you]" doesn't do that. And since the subject is the historical development of the widespread use of a symbol, it might be good to know what an expert thinks.
–
Seth JDec 8 '11 at 13:57